International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads549
• Pages7
• Words1790

Jurisdictional Challenges – Overview

• Jurisdictional complexity in international trade is due to the very transnational nature of commercial transactions between parties with different legal systems.
• Different rules of private international law can complicate disputes regarding contractual obligations or tortious liability (Harahap, 2025).
• In the absence of harmonised jurisdictional frameworks, forum selection and choice of law clauses take on increased importance as they may become not only enforceable but also quite powerful.

It is given that a party in disagreement as to where a matter should be heard, or if one does not know the law, may be led to invoke the provisions of a party of his choice. This highlights how International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions rely heavily on certainty of jurisdiction and governing law to minimise dispute escalation and enforcement risks across borders.

International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions Assignment Sample

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

George Clark 9 Years | LLB

 Failure to specify the governing jurisdiction may also result in parallel proceedings or forum shopping. This is because for FI, predictability and certainty lie in securing jurisdiction where parties prefer and the right to enforce at interfaces.

Assignment samples are shared to clarify coursework expectations and subject focus. With our uk assignment guidance, support is reflected through ethical use and original learning. The International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions Assignment Sample outlines legal principles governing jurisdiction, and Incoterms in cross-border financial transactions. It is provided solely for learning, structural guidance, and academic reference to support original work.

Jurisdiction – Case Law & Practical Risks

• The approach of the judiciary to jurisdictional disputes and repercussions of badly drafted clauses can be seen in case law (Alhasan, 2025).
• The English courts may, in complex international transactions, generally decline jurisdiction because another forum is more appropriate, provided there is no exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
• A UK buyer was sold components from a Chinese electronics firm CIF. On the other hand, when the goods were shipped, the goods had been damaged, since the insurance was minimal (according to CIF obligation), it was very costly for the buyer.

The risk acceptance in certain jurisdictions of the cases of non-recognition or non-enforcement of the judgment further complicates this. Pragmatic risk management for FI requires the separate inclusion of clear, exclusive jurisdiction clauses and compatible, legally enforceable arbitration agreements. The case law illustrates that international trade law: key issues in FI's global transactions require carefully drafted jurisdiction and dispute resolution clauses to avoid enforcement and forum risks.

Insurance in International Trade

• Insurance in international trade is the contractual means of protecting the shipping interest against perils of the sea that may impair or destroy goods carried by sea, i.e., physical damage, loss or delay.
• Trade terms also require the commercial parties to specify to whom the bailment of the cargo shall be made and where it should be carried on and delineate who shall bear responsibility for the procurement of insurance (Beferdu Demisie, 2024).
• These are insurance contracts subject to legal duties of utmost good faith so that any material non-disclosure makes them voidable ab initio.

With rigorous policy vetting, FI must be able to ensure that insurance coverage complies with market standard clauses and statutory obligations and that it avoids the voidability or indemnity disputes post-loss.

Insurance – Legal Duties & Precedents

• The principle of uberrimae fidei—the duty of utmost good faith—is the principle which governs marine insurance contracts in international trade (MacDonald, 2023).
• There is an obligation on the assured to disclose to the underwriter, all material facts which may affect the underwriter’s assessment of the risk.
• The contract is voidable by the insurer on a breach of this duty, whether by misrepresentation or omission.

This doctrine is a legal one and is supported by legal precedent, which courts strictly interpret non-disclosure. Moreover, the policies should also meet with statutory frameworks like the Marine Insurance Act 1906. In the context of International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions, strict adherence to disclosure duties and statutory insurance frameworks is essential to preserve indemnity rights and commercial stability. For FI, disclosure and RFn terms adherence to policy are starting points to maintaining insurability and to avoiding indemnity disputes.

Hague-Visby Rules – Core Provisions

• The Hague Visby Rules are a convention establishing the rights and obligations between carriers and shippers in the carriage of goods by sea.
• They are also incorporated into UK law through the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, and originate from the 1924 Hague Rules and have been amended by the 1968 Visby Protocol.
• The purpose of these Rules is to standardise liabilities, define the duties of a carrier to make cargo ship seaworthy, and drawing lines on who to blame for the loss or damage of cargo.

They are applicable automatically in case a bill of lading is issued in a contracting state or port of shipment is in one. “This is to protect shippers and standardise responsibilities.” Vessels must be seaworthy and the carrier should properly handle cargo; carriers must act diligently. ‘Compliance is the key to staying out of the claim and the legal exposure when it comes to FI. These obligations demonstrate how international trade law: key issues in FI's global transactions shape carrier liability, seaworthiness standards, and compliance responsibilities in maritime trade.

Hague-Visby – Key Cases & FI Relevance

The Eleftheria [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237

• Established forum non conveniens—UK courts may decline jurisdiction if another forum is clearly more appropriate.

Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64

• Reinforced the sanctity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses; parties must abide unless injustice is shown.

The Sennar (No.2) [1985] 1 WLR 490

• Demonstrated the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses across different legal systems.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40

• Confirmed that arbitration clauses should be interpreted broadly, covering all disputes arising out of the relationship.

These rulings make clear that the shipper and carrier are carrying legal risks in the evidentiary process. To preserve FI’s legal recourse and evidentiary standing in potential claims, FI must maintain robust contractual obligations and documentation from all logistics providers.

CIF and FOB Contracts – Definitions

• Internationally recognised Incoterms in maritime trade include the CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) and the FOB (Free on Board) (Makau, 2022).
• Under CIF contract the seller is bound by arrangement and payment of cost of goods, insurance and freight to the port of destination specified, taking the risk on the seller once goods are shipped.
• However, with FOB, the risk lies in the rail of the ship nominated by the buyer and the goods are delivered onboard the vessel.

It is not only a matter of allocating costs but also the precise moment of risk and property transfer.

CIF vs FOB – Comparative Analysis

• The seller is charged for carrying costs and must take marine insurance; therefore, the CIF contracts afford greater protection to buyers (Alkhedhairy, 2023).
• Although the goods may be in bad condition when delivered, once they are shipped, the buyer bears the risk.
• For buyers who want to control shipping and insurance arrangements, FOB contracts can favour them.

However, they draw more exposure to transit risks. In CIF the constructive delivery of the goods is provided by Shipping Documents, and in FOB physical delivery to the vessel signifies the passing. Between CIF and FOB, as both have different meanings, FI will be required to determine which of the contractual control, financial risk, logistics management is the priority. Accordingly, the allocation of risk under CIF and FOB contracts plays a critical role in shaping obligations within International Trade Law and FI Global Transactions, particularly where financial exposure and logistics control intersect.

CIF/FOB – Key Cases

• Legal principles about CIF and FOB contracts have been well defined by ensuing judicial decisions. In Biddell Bros v E (Antoniou, 2024).
• Clemens Horst Co, the court held that under CIF terms, the buyer’s obligation to pay does not come into existence until the tender of conforming shipping documents, not physical delivery.
• In Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd, the court allowed FOB as it was, particularly where the seller arranges shipment under the buyer’s instructions.

Foebridge v Uncle Hugo’sSFights these cases which show that contract is CIF or FOB on a substance basis rather than z label basis and leads us that FI should draft contracts accurately to show the commercial intention.

Recommendations for FI

• Therefore, FI must establish a proactive legal strategy in dealing with international trade risks (Carr and Stone 2017).
• Express jurisdiction and governing law clauses should be included in all commercial contracts to avoid litigation uncertainty (Adesina and Abubakri Yekini, 2023).
• The Marine Insurance Act and relevant clauses must be reviewed annually, and the insurance policies must be reviewed as well.

Because of the importance of carrier agreements regarding the Hague-Visby Rules, indemnity clauses should be used to support them. FI should decide between CIF and FOB because contract terms should match FI’s logistical capabilities and risk appetite. Finally, training to staff involved in trade negotiation must be provided with regard to Incoterms, dispute resolution mechanisms and documentary compliance as a way of strengthening risks management infrastructure.

Conclusion

• While international trade law is complex, it is navigable through good strategic legal planning accompanied by the articulation of clear contractual drafting.
• In the context of FI, that means addressing jurisdictional ambiguities, securing robust insurance coverage, abiding by the Hague-Visby regime, and choosing proper Incoterms to reduce exposure and provide some certainty around commercial issues.
• Operational efficiency is supported in the legal framework with those liabilities being protected across jurisdictions.

If FI integrates these recommendations into its contractual practice, it will be perfectly placed to compete in intercontinental markets.

References

• Adesina, S. and Abubakri Yekini (2023). Implied jurisdiction agreements in international commercial contracts: a global comparative perspective. Journal of Private International Law, 19(3), pp.321–361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2023.2294615.
• Alhasan, T.K. (2025). From Pathology to Precision: Transforming Multi‐Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses in International Contracts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21473.
• Alkhedhairy, M. (2023). Fundamental Principles in Saudi Arabia’s Marine Insurance Law with Reference to the Law and Practice in Egypt and the UK: A Comparative Study. figshare. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.21695180.v1.
• Antoniou, A.-M. (2024). United Kingdom. Brill | Nijhoff eBooks, [online] 9, pp.637–672. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004709270_029.
• Beferdu Demisie (2024). International Law of Carriage. Social Science Research Network. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4768065.
• Carr, I. and Stone, P., 2017. International trade law. Routledge.
• Harahap, S.K. (2025). The Role of Private International Law in Resolving Disputes in Global Commerce. The Journal of Academic Science, 2(1), pp.196–204. doi:https://doi.org/10.59613/fxc1mm15.
• Hasan, A.I. (2024). Carrier’s Obligations as to Seaworthiness and Duty of Care in Contracts of Affreightment. figshare, [online] 12. doi:https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.27888921.v1.
• MacDonald, P. (2023). Pre-contractual duties: the fair presentation of the risk – an English law approach. Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, [online] 12, pp.76–102. doi:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802205893.00015.
• Makau, S.W. (2022). Free on-Board Contracts in International Trade; The Law and Practice. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4187903.
• Thool, F. (2023). Seaworthiness and due diligence in the wake of the grounding of CMA CGM Libra : An analysis of the relationship between English and Swedish maritime law andthe understanding of the concepts of seaworthiness and due diligence in accordancewith opinion of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. [online] www.diva-portal.org. diva-portal.org. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1749464 [Accessed 29 Feb. 2024].